Experienced and experimental heavy tanks of Western countries
After the adoption of the M103 tank into service in the United States, and the difficulties associated with this fact, the question arose about a radical modernization of the tank, or about a possible replacement. Quite an interesting solution to this problem with "little blood" was proposed by the Rheem Manufactured Company.
Here it is necessary to make a small digression and note that at that time in the United States and Great Britain, tanks belonged to one class or another, not by their weight, but by the caliber of weapons. Those. there were "heavy cannon tanks", "medium cannon tanks" and "light cannon tanks". The caliber of "light" guns did not exceed 76, 2mm, "medium" guns had a caliber of up to 83, 2-90mm (in Great Britain and the USA, respectively), guns with a caliber over 105mm were considered "heavy". Since a heavy tank (i.e. armed with a 105mm cannon and above, not necessarily having a large mass) was considered primarily as a long-range tank destroyer, its superiority over the tanks of a potential enemy in firepower and the accuracy of hitting the first shot at long distances. It was assumed that the tanks would fire mainly from the spot, being in the second line, so the M103 did not have an armament stabilizer (the gun of the FV214 Conqueror heavy tank was stabilized only in the vertical plane). To ensure decisive superiority, it was also required to increase the rate of fire, since even the use of a stereoscopic rangefinder in conjunction with the first models of a ballistic computer did not guarantee a 100% probability of hitting at a long range of fire. Additionally, the resistance of the defense increased when attacked by superior enemy forces (especially many times superior, as was the case in the case of the USSR's opposition to NATO countries in Europe).
model of the T57 tank.
Based on these considerations, the T57 heavy tank was proposed. The hull of the tank was borrowed almost unchanged from the M103, but the turret … The turret consisted of two cast parts hinged together. The lower one relied on a roller shoulder strap and provided horizontal guidance of the weapon, as in traditional designs, but the upper part, which was actually a turret and contained weapons, jobs for three crew members and part of the ammunition was performed swinging on a horizontal transverse axis, to ensure vertical guidance. The next feature of the project was the presence of a loading mechanism, which consisted of a drum for 8 unitary rounds, located obliquely directly under the breech of the gun, and a hydraulic rammer in the aft niche of the tower, behind the bolt.
the sequence of the loading mechanism.
For loading, the projectile was first removed from the store back and up, into the rammer tray, then the tray was brought into the loading position, coaxial with the barrel bore, and sent the projectile into the breech. The magazine, rammer and gun swayed together, so it was not required to move the barrel to a certain position and the loading process did not depend on the vertical guidance angle.
The gun was a 120mm T123E1 rifled gun, but modified to use unitary rounds. It was unusual to have a rigid mount for a gun of such a large caliber in the turret, without any recoil devices. Therefore, a hydraulic drive was used to open the shutter, which was automatically triggered after the shot. The role of the loader was to replenish the magazine from the stowage in the hull, which contained an additional 10 rounds, thus providing an ammunition load of 18 pieces.
The location of the crew's seats in the turret is standard for American tanks - the gunner is to the right of the gun, the tank commander is behind him and the loader is to the left of the gun. Above the commander's seat is a small turret with six T36 prismatic observation devices and a turret for a 12.7mm anti-aircraft machine gun. The second hatch is for the loader. Both hatches were mounted on a large slab that formed the middle of the turret roof, which could be opened with a hydraulic lift to facilitate access to the turret mechanisms. The driver's workplace remained unchanged.
Given the innovative nature of the project, the work progressed slowly, and by the time two towers were ready (one of them was installed on the T43E1 chassis), interest in the project cooled down. A shift in priorities in favor of developing small, air-transportable tanks led to the cancellation of the project in January 1957, before the prototype reached operational status and could be tested. Not a single photograph of the assembled prototype has survived.
model of a heavy tank T57
cross-section of the turret of the T57 heavy tank.
Already in 1950, it was suggested that T43 and T57 tanks armed with 120mm cannons would be unable to withstand Soviet heavy tanks, and at a conference in October 1951 it was recommended to start developing a new tank with a 155mm cannon. Initially, it was planned to install the T80 gun, with a high initial velocity, but the choice of HEAT and HE shells with a crushing hull as the main armor-piercing shells made it possible to use a lighter gun. The final choice fell on the modified 155mm T7 gun, previously tested on the experimental T30 heavy tank.
prototype of the T58 tank.
Thus, by January 18, 1952, the tactical and technical requirements for the new heavy tank, which received the designation T58, were determined, and an order was issued for the production of two towers in full configuration, for installation on the T43E1 chassis. After project approval, the United Shoe Machinery Corporation was awarded the development and construction contract. Conceptually, the new tower repeated the T57 project, with the only exception that the gun was installed with conventional recoil devices (but adjusted to a shorter recoil length). The modified gun received the designation T180, from the T7 the main differences were: a vertically sliding bolt wedge, an ejector and a modified muzzle brake. In addition, the barrel walls in the area of the chamber were thickened, and the chamber itself was lengthened by one inch for the possibility of using new separate loading shots with a protruding plastic plug on the muzzle of the sleeve.
diagram of the loading mechanism of the T58 tank (the drum rotation handle is visible).
Behind the gun, in the turret niche, there was a six-round drum-type magazine horizontally. To replenish the store, the loader first placed a sleeve in an empty cell, and then, using a mechanized stowage, a projectile. The loader chose the requested type of shot by rotating the magazine, after which the cartridge case and the projectile were loaded in one step. After the shot, the cartridge case was thrown back, into the cell from which it was removed, and was placed by the loader back in the packing. The fire control system did not differ from the M103 and T57, it consisted of the T50E1 commander's stereoscopic rangefinder, the T184E1 gunner's periscope sight and the T30 ballistic computer, but it was not installed on the prototype. The T170 reserve telescopic sight was also supposed to be installed on serial tanks, but was absent on the prototype. The T43E1 chassis used on the prototype was modified to allow the swinging tower to have a maximum elevation angle, first of all, this affected the roof of the engine compartment, but in general the differences were minimal.
longitudinal section of the turret of the T58 tank.
Work on the creation of prototypes was delayed, and simultaneously with the cancellation of work on the T57 project, they were discontinued. A similar turret design was developed and tested, including for medium tanks, as it made it relatively easy to solve the problem of automating loading, but it was soon abandoned for many reasons.
In parallel with the work on the T43, T57 and T58 projects, at the Question Mark conference series, issues of creating more effective heavy tanks were discussed. The main task of the conferences was to bring together both developers and users of armored vehicles, so that they could communicate directly better about each other's requirements and, at the same time, develop a concept for promising armored vehicles.
layouts and sketches Н1, Н2 and Н3
At the first conference, held in Detroit in April 1952, three heavy tank concepts were presented. Two of them differed only in armament (120mm T123 gun or 155mm T7 gun) and were a tank with a crew of four, placed entirely inside a rotating turret. The shape of the bow is also of interest - with a reverse slope of 60 ° and a flat roof (i.e., the tank seemed to lack the upper armored part, the role of which was played by the lower one with a thickness of 127 mm, extended to the horizontal roof of the hull). The third prototype was armed with a 175mm gun in a large turret, which is intermediate in design between a conventional and a swinging tower (the tower itself, with the crew's workstations and most of the equipment, are stationary when the gun is vertically guided, which, together with the loading mechanism and the turret aft niche, are swinging). The driver was located in the hull, the frontal booking of which was carried out similarly to previous projects. All three concepts, which received the indices H1, H2 and H3, respectively, united the use of a turret ring increased to 2743.2mm (108 inches) in diameter. As shown by preliminary studies, this made it possible not only to increase the volume to accommodate more powerful weapons and / or loading mechanisms, but also to arm the turret with large angles of inclination. Later, at the Aberdeen test site, the correctness of the conclusions was proved by shelling samples of the towers. In June 1954, at the third conference (the second was devoted to self-propelled artillery issues) Question Mark, several models of promising heavy tanks were presented. All of them were subdivided into projects that do not require a lot of time for implementation (up to two years) and long-term promising projects. The former were called "TS", while the latter received the index "TL" (from the words Short and Long, respectively). In the first category, the following concepts were presented:
Tank with a smoothbore 105mm gun T210 - TS-2
Assault tank (self-propelled gun with a gun in a fixed wheelhouse) TS-5 with a similar gun.
Tank with 120mm rifled gun T123 - TS-6
Assault tank (self-propelled gun with a gun in a fixed wheelhouse) TS-31 with the same 120mm gun.
In addition to weapons, all presented concepts differed in layout, power units and armor. As a result, the TS-31 project was chosen as the basis for the development of an assault tank to replace the T43, if the T43E2 project was not successful. The two long-term projects presented were:
TL-4 - a tank of a classic layout, with a smooth-bore 105mm T210 gun in a rigid installation without recoil devices
TL-6 - rear wheelhouse assault tank with the same gun
The choice fell on the TL-4, and soon a contract was signed with the Ford Motor Company for the development and construction of the tank, which received registration number 105mm gun tank T96. As work progressed in this direction, it became clear that the T96 tower is quite suitable for installation on the chassis of the T95 medium tank, which was being developed at the same time. To save effort, the projects were combined, and the T96 heavy tank was deleted from the lists of promising models.
The TS-31 concept assault tank program was commissioned by the Chrysler Corporation, and the tank was designated 120mm gun tank T110. A step-by-step review of the initial concept revealed a number of weaknesses, and the project went through several revisions in succession until the customer, represented by the Detroit Arsenal and Chrysler, came to the final version. Now the T110 was a self-propelled artillery installation, made according to the classical scheme, with a rear engine compartment and a central fighting compartment, but the driver was located in the wheelhouse. His place was in the front right side of it, while the gunner was located on the left. Behind, to the right and to the left of the breech of the gun, there were two loaders, and in the rear of the wheelhouse, in the center, there was a tank commander's workplace, with a rotating commander's cupola armed with a 12.7mm machine gun.
schemes of a heavy tank T110
The 120mm T123E1 gun without recoil devices was mounted in a gimbal-type installation, guidance was carried out using the T156 gunner's telescopic sight. Further studies of the project confirmed fears that the placement of the gunner and driver in the wheelhouse would not allow its frontal armor to be completed with large angles of inclination, which in turn would require a significant increase in thickness to comply with the required protection. It was also assumed that, given the design weight and dimensions, it is possible to create a tank with a rotating turret, free from the above disadvantages. The new project was very similar to the M103, and generally surpassed it only with a more advanced OMS based on the use of the Optar optical rangefinder, which could be used by both the tank commander and the gunner. After successful tests of the M103A1, interest in the car disappeared and all work on it was curtailed.
a wooden model and a sketch of a heavy tank T110 with a rotating turret.
Speaking about American heavy tanks of the post-war period, it is impossible to ignore such an interesting project as "The Hunter". This extremely unusual type of combat vehicle, as the name suggests, was supposed to "hunt" enemy tanks, quite specific tanks of a very specific enemy - heavy tanks of the USSR.
projection of the tank "The Hunter".
In this compact 45-ton vehicle, everything is unusual - from the layout to the armament and chassis. The progress of cumulative ammunition made it possible to create shells of 90-105mm caliber, which can penetrate any conceivable armor of a tank. For a shot with such a projectile, a high muzzle velocity is not needed - its armor penetration does not depend in any way on the kinetic energy at the moment of the encounter, and accordingly remains unchanged over the entire distance.
model of the tank "The Hunter".
In connection with these features, the idea of a cannon-launcher for missiles with a cumulative warhead was born, which will make the barrel and bolt very light, and at the same time dramatically increase the rate of fire. A pair of such 105mm guns made up the Hunter's armament, they were supplied with a magazine for 7 rounds each, and could empty it at a fantastic rate - 120 rounds per minute! Such a high rate of fire was needed to compensate for the low accuracy of rockets, especially at long ranges, at which it was planned to fight against heavy enemy tanks. Additionally, the tank was armed with a pair of 7.62mm machine guns, paired with the guns and located on the outside of their barrels. In addition, the commander's cupola could have a pair of 12.7mm anti-aircraft machine guns, or other weapons (one large-caliber and one rifle-caliber machine gun - the final composition of the armament was not determined). The total ammunition load was 14 rounds in gun magazines and 80 rounds in the hull, i.e. 94 shots.
layout diagram "The Hunter".
The layout of the vehicle as a whole is close to the classical one, but only in the sense that the control compartment, the fighting compartment and the engine-transmission compartment are located sequentially along the length of the vehicle. The driver was sitting in the front part in the center of the car, behind him was a small turret with a gunner sitting in its center, and guns were located on the sides. Behind this compartment, with an excess, there were the commander's (right) and loader's seats, but since this part rose above the front, the shelling in the stern was limited, and was provided only with the maximum elevation angle of the trunks. The stern housed a power plant and a hydraulic transmission, but unlike traditional tanks, each Hunter's wheel was a leading one. This made it possible to use a lightweight reinforced rubber track. The use of composite armor in the project is noteworthy - at that time there was widespread research to improve protection against cumulative ammunition, and one of the solutions was the so-called "glass" armor, or "siliceous core". At an actual thickness of 6.5 inches (165mm), the three-layer armor provided similar protection as the same thickness monolithic, but weighed only 4.6 inches (117mm). The frontal parts of the Hunter's hull and turret armor were supposed to be made of just such armor, increasing their durability. Another feature of the tank was the presence, in addition to the traditional hatches for the crew, of a single lifting armor panel that covered the top of the commander's compartment with the gunner and the engine-transmission compartment. If necessary, it was raised by a hydraulic cylinder and provided either excellent access to the power plant and ammunition compartments, or cover for the crew when leaving the vehicle on the battlefield.
longitudinal section of the tank "The Hunter".
But due to the change in priorities towards light vehicles, the "Hunter" did not leave the sketch stage, although it was quite well worked out. At this point, the consideration of American heavy tanks can be completed, since the projects of heavily armed tanks proposed at subsequent Question Mark conferences (i.e. with 120mm and 152mm guns) were in fact light, with a curb weight of up to 30 tons.
After the release of the FV214 Conqueror, Great Britain noticeably cooled towards heavy tanks, and light vehicles, including those armed with guided weapons, were considered as enemy tank destroyers. And the project that eventually gave rise to the Chieftain with a curb weight of 52 tons and a 120mm cannon began as the development of a medium tank to replace the Centurion.
